It’s been a long standing argument from the Left that Fox News isn’t really news, and the conservative bias makes their reporting worthless and nothing more than propaganda. Every time I’ve heard someone make this statement I’ve always followed with a question: “do you really think the other news agencies are any different? Is there a single media outlet left without bias?”

What people tend to forget is that while we don’t have a state-run media (which could be debatable), television networks, newspapers and their respective news programs are all for-profit ventures. Your favorite news anchor, regardless of the network or how unbiased it claims to be, is not giving you the news for free. And money, of course, is the greatest creator of bias in our society.

The major news outlets have made quite a hobby of defending themselves and the quality of their news by attacking the others, claiming themselves to be the only source without media bias while the rest are corrupted and untrustworthy. It seems CNN decided to buck this trend and chose to show its absolute media bias this weekend when it announced it would refuse to cover Donald Trump’s presidential campaign with him as a candidate, but would instead be covering him as an entertainer.

This may seem like no big deal to many (especially those on the far Left), but I see it as a very scary evolution in the downward spiral American journalism (and their media bias) has been in for the past decade or so. When the uber-Liberal California governor’s race included everyone from porn stars to childhood actors they had no trouble covering it, but now that a conservative candidate with media savvy (the one thing lacking from most GOP candidates) has taken the stage, they refuse to allow the American people to make their own decision.

What bothers me the most about this decision not to even pretend to be unbiased anymore is that it is signaling the loss of one of the last true American freedoms. In a nation that prides our self on being the land of the free, the right and ability to choose & vote for whichever candidate you prefer is really one of the only freedoms we have left.

The “land of the free” incarcerates more people annually than any other nation in the world, many for minor drug charges. Even though the very first amendment in our Bill of Rights is supposed to guarantee freedom of speech, that freedom apparently doesn’t apply if you want to express yourself as a religious person (even though freedom of religion is supposed to be an integral part of our society).

In a free market capitalistic society (which we are supposed to have) you have the freedom to choose what you want or don’t want to spend your money on; this applies in America today, unless it’s insurance and the government only wants you to spend your money on companies who gave generously to the democratic presidential campaigns.

There are even laws on the books regarding campaign coverage and ads, trying to ensure that different networks give all candidates an even amount of coverage allowing the American people the freedom to choose who wins their vote.

But now CNN feels you don’t deserve that freedom. We had a joke in one of my previous offices that the most depressing show on television was CNN, or the Constantly Negative News channel, and now I realize that joke has become a reality.

I’ve been out of the active duty military for about six years now, and every time I hear another veteran talk about reintegration into the private sector being more terrifying than any combat mission, I nod my head in agreement.

Even though I owned my first business, completed my undergraduate in marketing and had plenty of experience in the private sector before leaving for Infantry Basic Training, the fear of the unknown when I started out processing was as real and dark as any had been in my past.

Part of it may be the feeble attempt made by the military upon transition. In my experience, I was required to take a transition course during my last few weeks in the Army.

This consisted of a handful of soon-to-be former soldiers and myself sitting in a classroom, receiving “death by PowerPoint” tips and guidance on things like resume-writing, job searches and interviewing skills.

As we neared the end of the course, I couldn’t stand another generic Army-issued video, so I asked our instructor about his private-sector experience. Apparently, in the eyes of the Army, being a soldier for twenty years and retiring qualified him to move directly into teaching a course about working in the private sector.

Yes, his only private sector job was teaching us how to get a private sector job.

You can’t make this stuff up.

What I’ve found from my time in the private sector, through interactions and discussions with various management or HR types, is that the people on the other side of the interview table are just as unprepared as the veteran going out for their first job interview.

And as with most major difficulties or misunderstandings in life, this too seems to be almost completely attributable to communication issues.

There are numerous companies across the country, large and small, that have made a pledge to hire veterans, with some even going so far as training the veterans for a specific job no matter what their background and military occupation was.

There are even more non-profit, charity and head-hunting organizations which have sprung up with the sole purpose of helping veterans find corporate jobs after their separation from the military.

But with veterans writing perhaps their first resume after leaving the Army, the task of translating their skills, duties and experience can be quite a challenge. On the other side of the table, a hiring manager or HR rep may think something like Special Forces Medic or Air Force Combat Controller sounds pretty cool, but has no idea of how to translate it to what their organization needs.

At the end of the day, no matter how big their corporate heart or desire to help the veteran community, they can’t just create a job out of thin air and pay a veteran to sit idle at a desk – they have to know where to best utilize this precious resource.

But there are some companies out there willing to jump right in and take advantage of everything a veteran brings to the table. I was contacted a few weeks ago by an old friend from my time in Special Forces who got wind of a company named ExBellum that had a program he thought would be right up my alley.

The founder of ExBellum (a former SEAL himself) had recruited a Special Operations veteran to work for a large Fortune 500 company to fill a vacant position in their middle management. In short time the company was so impressed with his performance they partnered with ExBellum to create an internship, and created something I wish other companies would be smart enough to follow.

Impressed with the crucial decision-making and myriad other skills they saw in Special Operations veterans, the company chooses roughly ten of us to compete, every quarter, for a high-level internship to learn everything about their business, from the top.

They understand that while it’s difficult to translate on a resume, the ability of a veteran to be thrown into almost any situation with little-to-no resources and quickly size up the situation, find a solution and prioritize a path to that goal is exactly what we were taught during our time in uniform – and is second nature to most of us now.

And that seems to be where the miscommunication lies: while HR reps and hiring managers spend their time writing specific job duties and qualifications listed, they don’t expect to see a bullet point on a resume for “jack of all trades, master of none.”

But that’s exactly what military experience gives those who make the most out of our time in service.

I’ve heard a lot of discussions about vets not knowing how to translate their skills into a resume format, but I don’t think the problem needs to be fully addressed on that side of the house.

There are different formats for the interview setting, and companies who want managers or leaders with experience in more than one niche would do well to look to the veteran community and conduct interviews for the person, not bullet points and job descriptions.

Now, I’m not saying that every veteran should automatically be placed in the line of succession to be the next CEO, but I do feel many companies would be well-served to adjust their hiring practices to facilitate this untapped resource that we have, waiting to be utilized.

Of course in order to make these changes, any large corporation would first have to follow the most important lesson learned for both military and corporate strategy: to adapt.

One of the bullet points which stands out the most on my resume pertains to my being picked to provide tactical medical care for Vice President Dick Cheney during his visit to Kabul, Afghanistan in early 2008.

Not that it was all that eventful (we did intercept several would-be suicide bombers strapped down with chest explosives), but that opportunity did provide the chance to spend some time with various secret service agents over the several days we spent on the mission.

This was after Obama and Hillary had been furiously campaigning against each other, and the agents had some very choice words for the two candidates. They didn’t hold back much in their description of Hillary being a lying, two-faced and disingenuous person once the cameras and microphones were turned off.

I’ve kept that in the back of my mind every time I’ve seen or heard Hillary or news of Hillary, and with the vast number of scandals that have plagued her recently, her “it’s not my fault” and “blame it on someone else” responses don’t surprise me in the least bit.

And while I’m no big fan of Hillary (isn’t it obvious yet?), I do have to say I’m quite surprised her PR people are allowing her to get away with trying to shift blame every single time something like this surfaces. I guess the days of President Truman having a “The buck stops here.” sign on his desk are long gone from politics in the USA.

But aside from proving that she’s a spineless coward who can’t own up to her own mistakes, there is a whole new level of understanding Hillary that is beginning to be seen by Americans who are witnessing her failed attempts to dodge scandal after scandal by playing the blame game: that not only is she spineless and two-faced, but that she’s also downright incompetent.

While Benghazi and emails may be the scandals most fresh in your brain, there is a long list of scandals that have been following Hillary throughout her career. Take a second to search “Hillary Clinton scandals” online and you’ll find links to numerous scandals, some very loosely tied “conspiracy theories,” but many directly tied to Hillary.

As a career politician with eyes on the most powerful political seat in the world, I hope that everyone who would dare wear a Hillary 2016 button understands that someone who’s response is, “What does it matter?” during the Benghazi hearings and who can’t figure out the most basic security fundamentals of using secret-cleared email accounts for state department communications has no place being in the White House (or politics in general).

So while the Hillary PR campaign has stiff-armed any attempts to have her admit responsibility, they’ve also succeeded in showing her to be someone who is grossly incompetent and has no place on a voting ticket.

But I’m sure she’ll be there anyway in 2016, so please remember: she may smile on camera and tell you she’ll be there to answer the call when it comes, but when the cameras and microphones are turned off, it’s actions that matter most, not just lip service.

I couldn’t be more proud of all the accomplishments veterans and especially members of the SOF community have made during the past decade, both in and out of uniform. I’ve seen various spats between other vets working their way towards success in the public eye for books, movies, websites, podcasts, etc, and I can’t help but hang my head in shame a bit every time I see that.

As my former Green Beret Brother, close friend and 18D course classmate Klint Janulis (who now has a reality show on the BBC and is working towards his PhD at Oxford) loves to say, “a rising tide lifts all ships,” in respect to those of us who have formed alliances outside of our time in uniform to help each other with our pet projects.

I myself am part of a group called “The Military Media Mafia,” comprised of book publishers, magazine publishers, and a radio network. All of veterans, by veterans, and for, well, anybody who loves veterans and wants to hear what we have to say.

I do everything I can to support other veteran projects, and as such I found myself with a little free time one day last week, so my girlfriend and I decided to take ourselves to see “American Sniper.”

Before I get started I have to admit that I have not read the book, and as a veteran author I know that makes me a bad person! But, in all respect, I’ve just finished writing my second (“The Pact,” available next week through Tactical 16 publishing), and try to stay away from reading other military works while writing my own so as not to subconsciously plagiarize in any way, shape or form.

With that out of the way…I loved this movie. There are people who complain about the fact that the book was written by two ghostwriters, which took it a few steps away from Chris Kyle’s own words, and the screenplay was then written by another non-veteran Hollywood type, taking it another step away from reality. But all in all this movie captured things that no other war movie on the OIF/OEF conflicts ever have.

There are only two movies I’ve seen on our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan which have done those conflicts the justice of reality, and those films are Restrepo (an amazing documentary I suggest everyone see) and now American Sniper.

I loved Restrepo because it showed the reality of warfighters in Afghanistan and the real face of war that visiting politicians, generals, celebrities on USO tours and journalists who hide behind the Green Zone hardly ever see.

Living in the dirt, daily firefights/mortar/rocket attacks, living on whatever food you can scrounge and a shower every month or so. That was my Afghanistan, and while many who spent their time in Kabul, Bagram or Helmand never lived that, I know my Brothers and I sure did.

American Sniper shows another side of war that Restrepo touched on, but took it to a whole new level. Academics have pondered the causes and effects of PTSD since the Vietnam war, and while the books “On Killing” and “On Combat” by LtCol Dave Grossman (a must read for anyone who loves and wants to understand a combat veteran) were the first to address this in an academic sense, American Sniper was the first I’ve seen to truly address it in the public eye.

This movie portrayed the following in such great and vivid detail that I found myself shedding tears throughout the movie; thankfully we were all alone in the Town Center theatre at the matinee showing, and thankfully Natalie knows me well enough that she didn’t have to ask why. It wasn’t a particularly sad part of the movie, but several that were glaringly familiar to my life and experiences in war and at home.

Being in Special Operations, both the SEAL teams that Kyle was a part of and Operational Detachments-Alpha (ODA’s) that I was a part of have the privilege of going after extremely High Value Targets (HVT’s) while we are at war. A thing that separates us from other units is that we don’t just go get the bad guys; we study them, learn their patterns, the bad things they’ve done, and get inside of their heads.

In doing so we see the darkest depths of the human soul, and levels of depravity no man should ever have to know exists in the world. Kyle was criticized in the public eye from many fronts by calling the Iraqi’s “savages” multiple times, but those of us who have been in that community and on those missions know exactly what he was talking about.

Sometimes we get the bad guys, and for us it’s a happy ending. We target, find, locate and kill or capture people that do despicable things to other human beings, and the world is a safer place.

Other times, however, we spend all of that time preparing to get the bad guys, and as American Sniper showcases in his hunt for “the butcher” on his first tour, we return home without the satisfaction of introducing them to a prison cell or their maker.

The toll this takes on your psyche is difficult to describe, and as a parent it keeps you awake at night, knowing that your tour ended before you could get this evil human being, that he’s still out there, and that there is a chance, albeit a small one, that evil could come here to our shores and harm our families and countrymen.

Another aspect of war that is excellently showcased in this movie was that of the time between deployments. Kyle and I were both members of the “four deployments” club, and while his were all in Iraq, mine were hopping back and forth between Iraq and Afghanistan, so at least I had the pleasure of changes in scenery!

A part of multiple deployments that is difficult to describe and even harder to understand is the feeling that you don’t “belong” home. It defies all logic, but makes perfect sense to we combat veterans.

We know we’ll be miserable back in Iraq or Afghanistan, that the food is horrible, we’ll rarely eat, sleep or shower, and only get to talk to our loved ones via satellite phone or shoddy internet connection occasionally.

But despite all of those truths, we know that our place is there. We know that we are the Sheepdogs, and that it is our place in life to protect those who need our protection. As the Green Beret motto goes, “De Oppresso Liber: To Free the Oppressed.”

Although it is amazing to be back home, in the comfort of our bed, hopefully wrapped in the arms of loved ones, there is an emptiness in our souls knowing that other Americans are in harms way and we are sitting comfortably at home.

Veterans are respected by our country for our selfless service, but it is that very same selflessness that keeps us awake at night, feeling guilty for allowing ourselves a break from the horrors of war.

I don’t want to give too much of the movie away, but I felt that with all of the other people in the country weighing in, veterans or not, I had to give my two cents. This movie was extremely gratifying from an entertainment perspective, and extremely honest from a Special Forces combat veteran perspective.

I highly suggest that everyone see it, especially those of you who know and/or love a combat veteran. There are certain things they just can’t tell you, not because of security clearances, but because of our own walls, barriers, and unwillingness to bring our knowledge of the darkest depths of human depravity back to our own shores.

Go see this movie, enjoy it for the entertainment, but learn something about the veterans around you, what they’ve gone through, what they’re dealing with, and why sometimes they just need a little time to themselves after coming home.

I’ve written about game theory on my blog before in the context of North Korea, but with the reports last week of a Russian TU-95 aircraft being intercepted in UK airspace carrying a nuclear payload, I think it may be a good idea to rehash the idea of deterrence theory to help explain what is going on here. The fact that most mainstream media outlets in the US aren’t covering this story in great (if any) detail is a bit alarming, but that’s another story entirely.

Deterrence theory is mainly attributed to Thomas Schelling, an American economist and professor of foreign affairs, national security, nuclear strategy, and arms control at the School of Public Policy at University of Maryland, College Park. He was awarded the 2005 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (shared with Robert Aumann) for “having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis”.

In his 1966 work “Arms and Influence,” Schelling introduced Deterrence Theory as a form of Game Theory, and brought the idea of mutually assured destruction into popular American thought. This theory has been argued and studied by numerous defense strategy think tanks, military scholars and heads of state and can get pretty complex, so I’ll dumb it down a bit for the sake of time and space.

Deterrence Theory is essentially the idea that if my enemy believes an invasion of my territory or hostile acts against my state will end in catastrophic losses or mutually assured destruction (due to my nuclear or strategic response capabilities), he won’t attack in the first place.

Some scholars have refuted this idea and called it nonsense, but since the nuclear proliferation began between the nuclear superpowers of the world, we haven’t had a major incursion. The upside of deterrence theory: the fact that both sides have nukes and immediate response times prevents any actual nuclear war, unless a real Dr. Strangelove arrives on the scene and doesn’t care that both sides perish.

The downside of deterrence theory: while it may prevent large scale, high intensity conflicts around the world, it increases the proxy wars and use of special, clandestine and covert operations against each other so that no country can be directly blamed for hostilities against the other. Think of how we fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, the proxy wars in Central and South America in the 1980’s, and the influx of foreign fighters we fought in Iraq in Afghanistan.

So now we turn back to Russia flying bombers armed with nuclear payloads over the English Channel last week. Intelligence officials in the UK claim they knew that bomber had a nuclear payload long before it entered UK airspace. The Norwegian listening post who picked up the crews communications confirming the payload claims the Russians know that post can hear everything they say internally while in UK airspace.

Yet they still went ahead, under the auspices of a training mission to hunt British Vanguard submarines (funny enough, the very submarine in the British fleet designed as a nuclear deterrent).

This, by very definition, is deterrence theory. With all of the sanctions imposed on Russia by the West lately, they want to send us a reminder that not only are they still a military superpower, but they still have the ability to “reach out and touch someone.”

Many Westerners (including Obama, proven in his televised debate of Mitt Romney in 2012) made the false assumptions that after the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union the threat of the Bear went away. Putin, a former KGB operative and highly intelligent and strategic military thinker just wants us to remember that, while the Bear may have taken a short nap, it is not in hibernation.

Perhaps the winter has ended, and the Bear is starting to get hungry again.

To begin, I should state that I firmly believe if everyone in the world routinely watched the cartoon South Park, the world would be a better place. Is this because I think the world needs more sophomoric jokes and making fun of people? No, not really, but there is a very important vein to South Park that I think many seem to miss completely when criticizing the show: they make fun of everyone.

I am a very conservative fellow, probably one of the more conservative that you will meet, but I firmly believe that once you lose the ability to laugh at yourself for doing something silly or stupid, or to find the humor in situations, you might as well climb into the grave. I think humor is part of what makes us human, and if you don’t take advantage of a good laugh every once in a while, well, you aren’t much of a human at all.

This brings us to the popular, satirical and envelope-pushing French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Most American’s have only heard of Charlie before this week as the only magazine in the world (that I’m aware of) with the courage to actually print pictures of the Islamic prophet Mohammad; others have said they would but immediately backed down when threatened by the religious zealots in the Islamic faith.

Now, unfortunately, the magazine will be remembered by the tragedy that took place last week, in a three day rampage of violence resulting in 17 dead, 2 of which were my brother Masons. Many people will have a hard time believing or understanding this, but as many Masonic websites around the world have posted, at least they died in standing for their Masonic virtues of free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the people, for which I know they are proud.

It is an absolute shame that there are people (and I use that term loosely) who would be so vile and have such a lack of respect for humor or life that the mere drawing and publishing of a cartoon would drive them to a murderous rampage. It truly is a sad state when this can be condoned by anyone, and all I can ask is that God have mercy on their wretched souls.

But there is a valid point to be made here, and one that I feel must be addressed. I have heard many people (now, after 9/11, and numerous other times) blame horrible events like these on the religion of Islam. Being that I’ve spent a considerable amount of time in the Middle East and with Muslims, I have to call that general assumption that all Muslims would condone this just as ignorant as the animals who enacted this tragedy.

By using that same logic, all Catholics are guilty of harboring Nazi war criminals, as members of the Vatican were found to have helped the highest echelons of the Nazi military to escape to South America after WWII. By that same logic all Christians are bloodthirsty racists, as churches in the south not only condoned the Klu Klux Clan during the worst parts of our nation’s history, but also provided places for them to meet and had clergy comprising its ranks.

As a man who’s been around the world many times over, I can say that some of the best human beings I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing were Muslim; of the same token, some of the worst human beings I’ve ever known were Muslim.

Some of the best human beings I’ve known were Christian; but of the same respect, some of the worst human beings I’ve ever known where Christian.

You cannot blame a religion for its followers, just as you couldn’t blame a rock band for lunatics listening to their music. By making those broad generalizations you become just as ignorant and hate-filled as the pestilent scum who enacted this massacre, and you’re better than that.

I recently heard a lecture on corporate responsibility and image, and this question immediately popped into my head. While the Left tries fervently to replace Religion with Government, they also indoctrinate their followers to believe that corporations are evil, greedy institutions with no goodwill for the world. But is that really true? And if so, are politicians any better?

While Obama tells small business owners that “you didn’t build that,” and Hillary makes the bold accusation that “businesses don’t create jobs,” they hope that nobody will do their due diligence and actually look into those false misrepresentations of reality. For if they did, they would realize the organizations doing the most good for the world, from our country at least, are corporations.

Before my first trip to North Africa as a Green Beret (which I discuss at great length in my first book), we were given a hefty intelligence brief about the country we would be visiting, Niger. On the Department of Defense list of countries in terms of wealth Niger ranked dead last, and was considered a “welfare state,” meaning its primary source of income was donations.

We were told that Ghadaffi (former Libyan dictator) had been giving large sums of money to the Niger government to help feed their people, and stopped when he learned that only 1/10th of his donations were actually going to the people, with the other 90% lining politicians pockets.

Having been witness to government funded projects in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa, I can tell you that we fell into the same money pit as Ghadaffi with the billions we’ve piled into those countries, but we were never smart enough to turn the cash faucet off. American politicians don’t really care about where the money goes or how it’s spent, because in the end it’s not their money, and rarely are they held accountable for their ignorance of reality.

A corporation, on the other hand, actually puts effort into making sure their money goes to the right place and is being used for good. Yes, they get tax incentives to donate money, but they have another factor that drives them to ensure they are actually doing good for the world: image.

We have entered a new era in the corporate world, with businesses finding that both employees and customers are now willing to go to a corporation that pays less or costs more, but provides more in self-fulfillment.

Many Americans would now rather work for a company that builds wells in Africa, or buy products from a company who gives shoes to children in India, than another who may have ethical issues or gives nothing back to the global community.

As such, many corporations are very careful with how that image is maintained and portrayed, because while we neglect to hold politicians accountable for their mistakes or ignorance, the media and public love to hold the feet of Fortune 500 CEO’s to the fire and call for their resignation for any small mistake.

You can visit the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (www.CECP.co) to see just how many and which corporations are giving massive amounts of money to causes around the globe, focused on not only helping their corporate image, but also to make the world a better place.

I would also encourage you to visit OpenSecrets.org/BigPicture to take a quick look at the cost of political campaigns and elections in our country; that should help you put things into perspective on where politicians true motives are.

At the end of the day, it’s not the amount of money given that really matters, but how much of it actually goes to help that makes the difference. So the next time a politician from the Left tries to tell you that businesses are evil and don’t do any good for the world, have a look at how much that same politician spent on their last campaign, how it compares to the charity given by the very corporations they’re railing against, and decide for yourself where their true priorities actually lie.

Have you recently wondered why the media has been reporting everything in the economy is sunshine and flowers, that we’re out of the “Great Recession,” and that things around the country are getting better, but you can’t seem to find an actual person on the street who agrees with them?

I’m a financial nerd, so instead of listening to music while I’m in my car (which is most of my life living in the Los Angeles area), I listen to financial and market analysis podcasts. One analyst I listen to often is Porter Stansberry, who had a very good saying about determining the current state of our economy:

But while those of us in the real world see just how awful the economy really is, the government keeps telling us that we’re not only on the road to recovery, but that our economy and GDP are healthy and growing, while unemployment keeps dropping and American’s are better off and happier than they were a year ago.

I’m of the belief that bubbles and crashes are a natural part of the market and economy, and know quite a few investors who make the majority of their profits in crashes. We know that the stock market is a cyclical machine, which crashes every 7-11 years based on past performance, and investors with patience and an understanding of that cycle are some of the most successful.

Every analyst worth his salt says that we should be in a crash right now, the economic numbers are grossly inflated, and it’s only a matter of time until the next crash comes. Even Steve Forbes is saying to hold gold right now, to be prepared for what comes next.

But when looking at the stock market, you can’t just look at economic data anymore to determine what’s going to happen next; you also have to look at politics.

It was a conversation between Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad) and Charles Goyette (The Dollar Meltdown) that helped me to understand why the current administration is doing everything they can to manipulate economic data, put out all the stops to falsely prop the market up and keep the impending crash away as long as possible.

While Charles believes that the crash is imminent, as many others do, Robert put forth a theory that makes a lot of sense: that the DNC wants nothing more than Hillary Clinton to be elected in 2016, and knows that she’ll only be elected in a healthy market and economy.

While Charles advised to “batten down the hatches” now because the crash will be very soon, Robert believes that the democrats will do everything in their power (like manipulating economic data and using the governmental bodies to keep the dollar afloat) to keep the machine running until the next election.

I’ve heard the theories come up quite often in 2014 that the government was manipulating economic data, but the question “why” was never quite answered. Now that I’ve been given an answer by a very wise and successful investor, I almost wish I had never had.

I’ve always suspected that the game was rigged, but if Mr. Kiyosaki is correct, and the rigging goes all the way to the White House, then I am truly afraid for our future and what will come.